Under protest

Subscription Required

Thank you for reading the MtDemocrat.com digital edition. In order to continue reading this story please choose one of the following options.

Current Subscribers
If you are a current subscriber and wish to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com, please select the
Subscriber Verification option below. If you already have a login, please select "Login" at the
lower right corner of this box.

Special Introductory Offer
For a short time we will be offering a discount to those who call us in order to obtain access to
MtDemocrat.com and start your print subscription. Our customer support team will be standing by
Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm to assist you.

Call and Save! (530) 344-5000

If you are not a current subscriber and wish not to take advantage of our special introductory
offer, please select the $12 monthly option below to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start
your online subscription

Attached is a copy of a letter sent to Jerry Brown Govemor of the state of California. I didn’t expect a favorable response but I did expect an answer saying that he disagreed. The letter was sent to him on Sept. 9, 2012 and I have received no reply. My question is this enough to consider a recall petition? Or in your opinion do we need to wait for a more heinous action on his part?

Dear Gentleperson,

The Wife and I have received the billing for the so called fire prevention fee. I am paying the bill under protest. A copy of this letter is being sent to a local newspaper.

The reasons that this protest is made are:

1. The fee is a tax and was not passed by a required 2/3 majority of legislators.

2. A small portion of the bill is based upon time when there was no illegal law. You are billing from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 while the law was not enacted until July 7, 2011.

3. This fee (illegal tax) only is assessed to owners of places of habitation. I assume that you are going to provide more protection than is allowed to landowners who have no places of habitation? I don’t think that is reasonable.

4. Related to number three above is wild landowners are going to receive increased benefits from your added actions paid for with this fee. I should not have to subsidize the benefits for the wild landowners. If Cal Fire needs more funds to carry out their mission the funds should come from all landowners, if not all residents of the state.

5. The brochures accompanying the bill said that the fee (illegal tax) would not be collected in cities. Residents of a city like Placerville would not be billed. Residents of a community like Weaverville would be billed. Both are county seats of the county where they are located. Therefore I think this fee is wrong.

6. At times there are fires in places like Oakland and Malibu, cities in California which have no need for the residents to pay this fee. I think this is not right and that this law should be suspended and repealed.